What Would CNN Do?

Christmas is almost here.

Lately I've been wondering what would happen if there had been no Christmas 2000 years ago, and if a man suddenly appeared on the streets of Moline today proclaiming himself to be the "Son of God?" What would we say? What would the churches say? What would the media say?

2000 years ago, when Christ appeared in what is now Israel and preached his message, he was crucified. What if he hadn't appeared then, but appeared now, preaching his same message?

We sometimes tend to forget that Christ said certain things that were at seemingly significant
variance with what we have come to accept as his principle gospel message of loving God
and loving our neighbors as we love our selves, and caring for those in need. Many of the
teachings that we tend to gloss over have come to be called the "hard sayings" of Christ. They
are most often found in Luke's Gospel, and seem at variance with Christ's principle teachings.

Imagine for a moment that there was no Christ. No Christian gospels. No Christian faith. No Christian churches. And then imagine that all other faiths that we know today through outthe world in fact exist today. If Christianity did not exist, what faiths would predominate in the U.S.?

Now imagine that a man suddenly appears, teaching on the streets of Moline, Rock Island and Davenport. He preaches the entire message found in the four Gospels, while claiming to be the "Son of God." He says many things that appeal to his listeners, but then he also says ...

“If any one comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”

"A father will be divided against his son and a son against his father, a mother against her daughter and a daughter against her mother, a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.

From now on a household of five will be divided, three against two and two against three."

"I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing!"

"I tell you, do not worry about your life and what you will eat, or about your body and what you will wear. For life is more than food and the body more than clothing. Notice the ravens: they do not sow or reap; they have neither storehouse nor barn, yet God feeds them. How much more important are you than birds!

“No one who sets a hand to the plow and looks to what was left behind is fit for the kingdom of God. Let the dead bury their dead. But you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God. I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”

Would a 21st Century Christ be crucified? Probably not. But what would other 21st century faith
teachers say of a man with such a message? How would he be treated by CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and the NY Times? Would they focus on his teachings of peace and love, or would they focus on his "hard sayings." Would they make a good faith effort to understand the entirety of his teachings, or would they choose to misunderstand and say that his "hard sayings" were really the essence of his message, and that his teachings on peace and love were mere window-dressing?

What names would they call him? Lunatic? Nut? Trouble maker? Revolutionary? Terrorist?  ("I have come to set the earth on fire ...") Would they diagnose him as schizophrenic? Delusional, Manic? What if he repeatedly predicted his death? Would he be labelled "paranoid?"

Christ of the Gospels did not take explicit positions on many modern issues. So, what if instead of handing our 21st-century Christ a coin and asking "is it lawful to pay taxes” they asked him to state his views on abortion, gay marriage, homosexuality, transgenderism, and the legalization of marijuana? What if his answers did not square with those of the AP, Newsweek, the Washington Post, MSNBC or CNN? What do you think they would say and write about him?

Would we even have Christmas?

I'm thankful that Christ came to us 2000 years ago. Merry Christmas to all.

Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on December 20, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

The Stench of a Dead Cat

Since President Trump was elected in November of 2016, the Democrats have relentlessly insisted that "he can't claim immunity for his criminal acts."

So why is it that Joe Biden gets to claim immunity for his criminal acts? Democrats indignantly answer, "Because "Fairly Honest" Joe is one of our 2020 candidates for the office of President!"

During a January 23, 2018 appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations, former Vice President Joe Biden unequivocally threatened to withhold U.S. military aid to Ukraine unless the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden's "involvement" with a Ukraine gas company was fired. A classic quid pro quo! Here are excerptsfrom that taped interview:


"I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and fromYatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

"I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. ... I’m going to be leaving here in ... about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone
who was solid at the time."

President Trump has been accused by a "whistleblower" of "threatening to withhold U.S. aid to the Ukraine." What Biden did is worse. And if you don't believe there was a quid pro quo in what Biden did, then as Bret Maverick would say, "You'll believe a guy who tells you "It's "raining," as you watch him p... on your head."

The Democrats are quick to infer that President Trump wanted to "dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son so that he could use it in the 2020 Presidential campaign against "Fairly Honest" Joe." Never mind that Joe is only one of a herd of candidates vying for the Democrat nomination, with no guarantee whatsoever that he will be nominated.

The Democrats choose to presume that the President is guilty of wanting information for an illegal purpose.

But what if President Trump really had different reasons for wanting to know why Hunter Biden was being paid $50,000 per month to sit on a board of a Ukrainian energy company? What experience did Hunter Biden have in natural gas? What did he know of Ukraine? What if he was being paid $50,000 per month for doing nothing whatsoever useful on the Burisma board? What if that $50,000 per month was being paid out of the $1,000,000,000 of U.S. aid to Ukraine that "Fairly Honest Joe" was threatening to block?

In a recent ABC interview, Hunter Biden described his “qualifications."

Amy Robach, ABC News. You didn't have any extensive knowledge about natural gas, or Ukraine itself though?

Hunter Biden. No. But I think I had as much knowledge as anyone else on the board.

AR. If your last name wasn't Biden, do you think you would have been on the board of Burisma?

HB. I don't know. Probably not.


When was the last time you were paid $50K a month to sit on the Board of Directors of a giant company and do nothing? When was the last time your kid was hired to manage the affairs of a giant gas company when he knew nothing about gas or gas production? When was your kid was hired for $50K per month to work in a foreign country that he knew nothing about, and whose language he couldn't speak?

So could President Trump have had a valid reason to ask the Ukraine government to investigate how it was that the utterly unqualified son of VP Biden was being paid $50,000 per month for doing nothing?

What if "Fairly Honest Joe" was involved in a "money laundering" scheme? Joe couldn't hand $50K per month in U.S. foreign aid directly to his son. But what if the money that first went to Ukraine, then went to and was "laundered" through Burisma, and then to Hunter Biden?

But forget the "what ifs" …. It is crystal clear that Vice-President Joe Biden used the threat of withholding $1B in promised U.S. aid to force the Ukraine to quash the Ukraine prosecutor’s investigation of Biden's son. By his own admission VP Biden engaged in extortion.

This Biden affair has the stench of a dead cat, and the President has every right to inquire to see if U.S. aid was misused.

So should we worry about "rich" men being elected to high office? Or should we worry abou"poor" men who, along with their family members, get rich while the "poor" man holds high office?

Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on December 13, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

FDR Had his "Rudy Giuliani"

According to the Washington Post, William B. Taylor, Jr. "America's top diplomat to the

Ukraine," has testified President Trump's “ push to make President Zelensky publicly 

commit to investigations of Burisma and its alleged interference in the 2016 election 

showed how the official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the 

irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani.”

The virulently anti-Trump Washington Post describes Taylor's claim as a "forceful 

blow;" something that would justify  Rep. Schiff's antics in the House intended to 

culminate in the impeachment of the President. 

The essence of Taylor's charge is that the President's appointment of Mr. Giuliani as his

"personal representative" to the Ukraine to investigate the Biden affair, "undercut" the

official foreign policy of the U.S. in Ukraine. Schiff claims that that is an abuse of power 

so egregious, that it would justify impeachment. 

It has apparently never occurred to Ambassador Taylor or Rep. Schiff that, under the 

Constitution, the President alone sets the "foreign policy" of the United States. Taylor, 

all ambassadors and other State Department employees are there to execute the 

President's foreign policy, and not their own or the State Department's. Bottom line:  if 

the "regular" foreign policy of the U.S. is "purple" on Monday, the President can 

change it to "green" on Tuesday - with or without the advise or consent of any 

ambassador or the State Department. And because the President alone is in charge of 

our "foreign policy," he can choose as his "agent" any private citizen to serve as his 

"personal envoy" without the approval of Congress. 

Presidents have appointed men they could trust as their diplomatic "personal 

representatives" since the days of George Washington.  Have you ever heard of

Harry Hopkins? "Colonel" House?

President Trump in using Rudy Giuliani is doing precisely what FDR did during the 

months before Pearl Harbor (Dec. 7, 1941).

President Roosevelt had made the unhappy choice of appointing Joseph Kennedy Sr.

as his Ambassador to England. Kennedy served from March 3, 1938 to October 22, 

1940. During Kennedy's time as ambassador, Germany forcibly annexed Austria 

(March 1938). Hitler invaded Poland (September 1, 1938). Hitler invaded Norway and 

Denmark (April 1940). Hitler began the "blitzkrieg" of the Netherlands, Belgium and 

France (May 10, 1940. 

Kennedy had supported Chamberlain's policy of "appeasement," and scorned 

Churchill's belief that Hitler couldn't be trusted to abide by his agreements. Kennedy 

strongly opposed providing military aid to England, remarking,  "Democracy is finished 

in England. It may be here." He wanted to "bring about a better understanding 

between the United States and Germany."

Kennedy's ideas were totally out of sync with FDR's. Kennedy "resigned" on Oct. 22, 

1940. Thereafter, FDR's main representative to England was not any ambassador

or other State Department functionary. FDR used a man as his "personal 

representative" who he was certain would faithfully implement his foreign policy. That 

was Harry Hopkins. 

Here is what Winston Churchill wrote of Hopkins:

"On January 10 (1941), a gentleman arrived to see me at Downing Street

with the highest credentials. Telegrams had been received from Washington

that he was the closest confidant and personal agent of the President....

Churchill relates that their first meeting came during the height of the German "blitz" 

bombing of England. He further describes Hopkins as

" ... an envoy from the President of supreme importance to our 

(national) life. ... He was the most faithful and perfect channel of 

communications between the President and me. But far more than

that, he was for several years the main prop and animator of

Roosevelt himself. Together, these two men, one subordinate 

without public office, and one commanding the mighty Republic,

were capable of taking decisions of the highest consequence 

over the whole area of the English-speaking world."

FDR knew that his "foreign policy" flew in the face of the legally expressed will of 

Congress as stated in Congress's Neutrality Acts. After Hitler's March 1939 

invasion of Czechoslovakia, FDR had asked Congress to renew and expand cash-and-

carry sales of arms. Congress refused. In November 1939, Congress passed its final 

Neutrality Act. This Act lifted the arms embargo and put all trade with belligerent 

nations under the terms of “cash-and-carry.” But the ban on "loans" remained in effect, 

and American ships were barred from transporting goods to belligerent ports.

In October 1941, FDR unveiled his Lend-Lease Program, in the face of law that banned 

loans to belligerents.  

FDR had had enough of Kennedy. He didn't fully trust the State Department to execute 

his foreign policy. So FDR sent his friend and confidant Hopkins to execute his foreign 

policy. Nobody argued that in using "irregular" channels that FDR had committed an 

"impeachable offense."

Oh, and have you ever heard of "Colonel" House? He was President Wilson's personal 

"rep." 

Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on December 6, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

The Failure of Socialism at Plymouth Colony

The Pilgrims were English Puritans who founded the Plymouth Colony in 1620. They came to America for religious freedom, and to escape religious persecution. Unlike many other Puritans, who wished to reform the Church of England from within, the Pilgrims wanted their own church, separate from the Church of England.

In their early years at the Plymouth colony, the Pilgrims practiced "communalism" - what we would call today, "socialism." It was not by their choice.

To get to America, the Pilgrims had to obtain financing for their shipboard passage, and for all the things they'd need when they arrived in the American wilderness.

Carver and Cushman, their agents in England, sought that financing from Thomas Weston's syndicate of investors. These investors were acutely aware of the substantial losses incurred by the Jamestown investors (1607).

Carver and Cushman proposed a plan under which the Pilgrims would work five days a week for the investors, but two for themselves. After seven years, there would be an equal division of all property, their homes excepted, between the Pilgrims and the investors.

Owing to the risks involved, the investors insisted that all property — homes included — be held in common, and divided between the Pilgrims and the investors at the end of seven years. They feared that if the Pilgrims were allowed two days per week to work their "plots," they would expend all their efforts building their own wealth to the detriment of the investors. With no bargaining power, the Pilgrims yielded; the investors prevailed.

These negotiations demonstrate that the Pilgrims had no desire to practice the "socialism" of the early Christian community, described in "Acts of the Apostles."

The bargain proved a disaster. Forty-seven of the Pilgrims died that first winter. The first communal crops produced were insufficient to feed the survivors. There was no bread.

The colonists were reduced to a diet of water, fish and lobster. And while the Pilgrims hung on in misery, the investors reaped no return on their investment. Governor William Bradford writes:

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried for sundry years among godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's & other ancients, applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property, and bringing the community into a commonwealth, would make them happy and flourishing ..."

If ever "socialism" had a fair chance to prove itself, it was at Plymouth. It started from scratch, unencumbered by so-called pre-existing "capitalist evils." Sadly, the fruits of "communal ownership" were malnutrition, starvation, sickness and death.

Bradford describes his colonists as "godly and sober men" — as were the Christians of apostolic times. Nevertheless, Plymouth's "socialism" created the very divisions that socialism has been touted to eliminate. The men who worked their fannies off in the communal plots resented the "slackers" who didn't and yet received equal distribution of the produce.

"This communalism was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.

"The young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time & strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense.

"The strong ... had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than the weak who were not able to do a quarter the others could. This was thought injustice.

"And men's wives, commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meals, washing their clothes, etc., deemed it a kind of slavery ..."

When the Pilgrims came to realize they had no food and necessaries, and that none were likely to arrive from England, they "began to think how they might obtain a better crop" rather than "languish in misery." After much debate, they decided "every man should set ("plant") corn in his own particular (parcel)." "Every family was assigned a parcel of land, in proportion to their number."

Bradford writes:

"This had very good success. It made all hands very industrious. Much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means of the Government, and saved a great deal of trouble ..."

"The women now went willingly into the fields, and took their little ones with them to set the corn. Before they would have alleged weakness and inability ... and thought it tyranny and oppression."

The communal parcels were still tended five days per week. But it was the "particular parcels" that saved Plymouth, and brought prosperity. The colonist didn't have to be forced to work on their own plots. The need of the colony to "police" to insure work on the communal tracts was replaced by self-policing. The industrious prospered; the slackers reaped fruits commensurate with their efforts.

Posted: QCOline.com   November 27, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Bringing Charges is Easy; Getting Convictions not so Easy

       

In perhaps the best article I have ever read in the Dispatch, Tara Becker-Gray did a superb job of explaining to the public the new plan of Rock Island County State's Attorney Dora Villarreal to use the grand jury, in lieu of the preliminary hearing, to commence felony prosecutions in Rock Island County.

Ms. Villarreal's plan, of course, is not really new. The grand jury historically has been a part of English-American law at least since King Henry II and his Assize of Clarendon (1166). The preliminary hearing is the more recent innovation.

So what are the advantages and disadvantages of charging criminal conduct via a grand jury indictment rather than by the State's Attorney's information?

First, the advantages.

Ms. Villarreal argues that preliminary hearing mornings are "chaotic." She says that every Tuesday 30 to 34 'prelims' are set for hearing, but only three to six will actually go to a hearing; in the rest, defendants will waive the hearing.

That comports with my experience as presiding judge of Rock Island County's Criminal Division, where I served most of the last 10 years of my judgeship.

She further argues that a police officer is called for each of the 30 to 34 cases (to testify to establish probable cause so as to justify holding the defendant on bond or in custody until trial). Ms. Villlarreal is rightly concerned that most of the officers called to testify never do, because most defendant waive their “prelims" and thus, their time can be better spent elsewhere. 

My experience tells me she's correct.

This waste of police officer time is the only real justification for employing the grand jury (as opposed to preliminary hearings) to establish probable cause.

If each grand jury session lasts seven minutes, officers can be scheduled to appear at times certain, rather than waiting as the judge juggles 30 to 34 prelims to accommodate the schedules of defendants, defense attorneys and prosecutors.

Ms. Villarreal is also correct when she says judges, court clerks, and correctional officers are not present at grand jury sessions. But this advantage is illusory, as explained below.

Chief Judge Frank Fuhr adds, "From my point of view, (using the grand jury) actually frees up a courtroom on Tuesday mornings, so we can use it for other purposes.”

This savings is also largely illusory.

Tuesday morning prelims are scheduled for 210 minutes. But only about 30 minutes are actually devoted to hearing evidence at the three to six hearings. The remaining 180 minutes are employed in the formal arraignment of defendants. That should include reading them the charge, entering the pretrial order(s) and warning defendants they will be tried in absentia if they fail to appear for trial (this includes an enumeration of the trial rights the defendant will forfeit if he fails to appear for trial).

While the 30 minutes employed in conducting the three to six prelims will be saved, the other 180 minutes will necessarily be utilized later in conducting the formal arraignment of the newly indicted defendants.

Now, the disadvantages:

The grand jury consists of 16 jurors; 12 are necessary to make a quorum. Grand jurors have to be paid $10 per day, plus a fixed sum for mileage based on the city where they reside. It will cost the county roughly $200 for each additional session. Twelve extra sessions would cost the county roughly $2,400; 24 more weekly sessions, an extra $4,800 per year.

Transcripts cost $4 per page. If an average of 66 grand jury transcripts are prepared every two weeks, of just 6 pages each, the cost to the county will be about $42,000 annually.

There will be an offset of perhaps $7,500 as the three to six preliminary hearing transcripts will no longer be required.

My analysis is this:

Ms. Villarreal proposes to call the grand jury in every other week. That means it will have to hear 60 to 68 cases every time it meets. 

At 7 minutes per case — and that's fast — if there are 68 cases, it will take 8 hours to handle 68 indictments. That would be an 8-to-4 working day, without any breaks or delays. Calling them every week would keep the load manageable (30 to 34 cases).

The real question is whether allowing police officers to go about their jobs outweighs the additional juror and transcript costs. Does the benefit to the officers justify the plan? Arguably, it does. But the additional cost of transcripts and bringing in grand jurors weighs heavily against the plan. Arguably, the costs outweigh the benefit.

That being said, Ms. Villarreal's plan does nothing to insure a speedy disposition of cases — and disposition is what really matters.

When I surveyed the criminal docket about a year ago, I was flabbergasted to learn that a great many cases remained pending for a year or more. That is utterly unacceptable. Disposing of cases within 60 days, on average, from formal arraignment, should be the goal of every judge in the criminal division, and of the State's Attorney or candidates for State's Attorney (and their assistants).

Indicting is the easy part. Speedy and appropriate disposition is the hard part.

Posted: QCOline.com   November 15, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Bernie, Darling, Prove Socialism Works: Fix Venezuela First

Socialists always promise to end poverty by redistributing wealth expropriated from "rich capitalists." What happens when they run out of rich capitalists?

Imagine your pastor gives a Sunday homily extolling the life of St. Francis of Assisi, and his choice to lead a life of apostolic poverty. Then, in the next breath, the pastor encourages generous giving to your church's $5 million capital campaign. Do you see a problem?

If all parishioners lead lives of apostolic poverty, how can they donate $5 million to the capital campaign?


I have always wondered how Christ manged to survive during his three-year public ministry. Recall him saying, “Foxes have dens and birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to rest his head.”

Were conditions better for his apostles? His disciples? When Christ sent them forth to proclaim the kingdom of God, he instructed them "to take neither walking stick, nor sack, nor food, nor money, and let no one take a second tunic." He also instructed, "Whatever house you enter, stay there and leave from there."

But Christ also realized that doors might not be opened. "And as for those who do not welcome you, when you leave that town, shake the dust from your feet. ..."

So, how did Christ and his retinue survive Israel's winter nights when he and his disciples were not welcomed into homes? When they carried no money or blankets, and wore only tunics and sandals?

Around Jerusalem, the average high temperatures from December through March are 49 to 54 degrees and the lows are 43 to 46 degrees. Did Christ suspend his mission during inclement weather?

Where did Christ and his followers get their food? When their sandals and clothes wore out, how did they get replacements? How did Christ, his 12 apostles and his 72 disciples get by?

Luke's gospel gives at lest a partial explanation:

"He journeyed from one town and village to another, preaching and proclaiming the good news. ... Accompanying him were the Twelve and some women. ... Mary Magdalene ... Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward, Chuza, Susanna, and many others who provided for them out of their resources."The extent of the support these women provided we don't know. We know only that the women did provide for Christ and his followers.

The extent of the support these women provided we don't know. We know only that the women did provide for Christ and his followers.


After Christ's Ascension, we know his earliest followers strove to emulate his life, and to live without private property. "All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's needs."

But the incident of Ananias and Sapphira shows that some of the early converts had second thoughts about selling all their possessions and putting them into a common fund to be distributed according to "each one's needs." If socialism should have ever worked, it should have worked for the early Christians. Christ had hand-picked his apostles.

Did the system break down when all the property donated to the community was used up? Or did distribution according to need prove problematic? Acts tells us that the Greek converts complained that the division favored the Hebrew converts.

Was there a communal rule that every member must work? Did distribution according to need seem unfair to the worker who produced four times as much as his less-productive neighbor?

If all share equally, do newborn children receive distribution equal to productive workers? Wives? Other children?


Christ's mission was at least partially funded by his female followers, and by generous householders, who gave shelter to his disciples. What if Christ's female followers had had no money? What if nobody could afford to provide his disciples with shelter?

Without money for food, shelter and clothing, could Christ have carried on his mission for three years? What if Christ had starved to death that first winter?

While we have no details, we known that abject poverty, communalism and socialism were soon abandoned by the early church. If men and women who were so dedicated to the cause of early Christianity that they were willing to sell all they had and place the proceeds in the hands of the apostles couldn't make socialism work, why would we expect the socialist true believers in Congress to do better than the apostles?

Churches close when charitable giving falls below a given level. Socialist societies struggle or fail when there are no more rich to plunder.


Here's my challenge:

If Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) can prove that socialism works by going to Venezuela and fixing the mess created by Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro, then they can reasonably say that U.S. voters should consider entrusting our economy to them.

Posted: QCOline.com   November 8, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Impeach Trump! Forget Due Process!

President Donald Trump argues that he is being denied due process by Rep. Adam Schiff's secret impeachment inquiry:

The rules followed in the Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton inquiries are being trashed by Schiff. Nixon and Clinton had their attorneys present, members of their political party were allowed to question and cross-examine witnesses, and hearings were done in full view of press and public.

The Democrats respond that the President is making a dilatory process argument: "We control the House, Since impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, we get to make up the rules and to ignore precedents."

Imagine that you live somewhere other than the United States. One day you are arrested. You ask the arresting officer, why? He answers, "Eventually, you'll find out."

You spend three years in jail awaiting trial. Then, an officer takes you out of your cell, and into the bowels of the building to what appears to be a courtroom. A judge requires you to take an oath to tell nothing but the truth. The judge begins to examine you.

You: Is this some sort of trial?

Judge: Yes.

You: Am I facing imprisonment?

Judge. Yes. You can be burned at the stake. If you recant, life imprisonment.

You: What am I accused of?

Judge: Heresy.

You: I want an attorney.

Judge: Innocent men don't need an attorney.

You: If you're going to burn me at the stake, I need an attorney.

Judge: This court has taken depositions of witnesses. This court has determined there is cause to       believe the witnesses accusing you of heresy are credible.

You: What witnesses?

Judge: You are not entitled to that information. It is for the safety of the witnesses.

You: Don't I get a written charge? An indictment?

Judge: No.

You: Will I be allowed to see these witnesses in this court? Hear their testimony against me? Cross-examine them?

Judge: No.

You: How can I defend myself, if I don't know what my accusers have said?

Judge: It is not necessary for you to know what they said against you. You defend yourself by answering my questions truthfully.

You: Wait! Are you the prosecutor or the judge?

Judge: Both

You: Where is the jury?

Judge: I am your jury.

You: But you say you have already determined there is cause to believe my accusers are credible. You have admitted you are predisposed to find me guilty. I want an impartial jury.

Judge: In the court of Inquisition, there are no juries. Based on my preliminary examination of the witnesses, I have merely come to presume you guilty. If you can prove your innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, I will acquit you.

You: Can I call my own witnesses to prove my innocence?

Judge: No. They'd probably lie.

You: Can I testify for myself?

Judge: Yes, but as you are presumed guilty of heresy, your testimony is suspect.

You: What if I refuse to testify?

Judge: I will return you to your cell. You will have 30 days to reconsider your contempt of this court.

You: And if I again refuse to participate?

Judge: You will be adjudged a contumacious heretic and burned at the stake.


Whether presidential impeachment is a criminal proceeding or not, misses the point. The Spanish Inquisition was not a criminal proceeding. Yet, upon a finding of heresy, the heretic was remanded to the civil authorities to be burned at the stake.

Impeachment carries ruinous penalties. Our Bill of Right — the Sixth Amendment in particular — was designed by the Founders to ensure there would be no Spanish Inquisition — or its like — in America.

Our Bill of Rights creates procedures designed to fairly balance the governments need to convict against the right of the innocent man not to be convicted. Those procedures have come to be know as due process.

The Sixth Amendment procedures require "fundamental fairness," aka due process, in criminal cases: speedy trial, public trial, impartial jury, specification of the nature and cause of the accusation, right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, compulsory process for obtaining favorable witnesses, and assistance of counsel.

Many are generally required even in civil and administrative cases. The chief justice presides at an impeachment trial to insure that the president is accorded due process consistent with the nature of the proceeding. And to ensure the proceedings appear fair.

His rulings, however, can be overruled by a majority of the Senate, from which there is seemingly no appeal to the courts. But without due process, we would have the appearance and reality of a new Spanish Inquisition.

Posted: QCOline.com   November 1, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea